Talk:Balkans/Archive 1

Macedonia
REGARDING THE "ETHNOGRAPHE" MAP LOCATED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE ARTICLE. ACCORDING TO THE IMAGE MACEDONIANS (MAKEDONCI) DO NOT EXIST AND ARE IDENTIFIED AS BULGARS. ALSO GIVEN THAT THE MAP IS PRE-OTTOMAN EMPIRE (AS SEEN WITH RASCIE PROVINCE), ITS MISLEADING IN IDENTIFYING MUCH OF SOUTHERN SERBIA BEING INHABITED BY ALBANIANS. GET A LEGITIMATE MAP. THIS ONE IS QUESTIONABLE. SERIOUSLY, LOOK AT THE EXTENT OF THE ALBANIAN POPULATION IN THE MAP. ITS PRACTICALLY UP TO NIS! THIS IS RIDICULOUS. IT WAS NEVER THE CASE, MOST CERTAINLY NOT BEFORE THE OTTOMAN CONQUEST. THE SOURCE IS BIASED, WRONG, CORRUPTED. DELETE THE IMAGE AND REPLACE IT WITH ONE THAT IS TRUE! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.196.112.114 (talk • contribs).

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is Slav Macedonia, not Macedonia! Alexander the Great was not Slav!


 * That's what I meant by petty nationalistic behaviour. Zocky 23:18 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

There's no end to this discussion. Trust me. Greek nationalists demand that Macedonians should be called Macedonian Slavs and not Macedonians, because Macedonians were an ancienct semi-greek people (see Macedon). There position is completely ridiculous, though - it's like Germans demanding that the French be called something else because Franks were a German tribe or Swedes demanding that Russia changes its name because the name originally comes from a Swedish tribe. There are examples like this all over the world, so the only difference here is Greek nationalism.

I don't want to start an edit war over this, but I don't like them getting their way. Zocky 11:39 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

Mr Zocky ! This is nationalism !(see VERGINA SUN) http://home.arcor.de/macedonia/basket/ìndex.html

http://www.macedonianpride.cjb.net 62.47.35.138, please make your case here on the talk or you will be banned. Three broken links and some incoherent shouting doesn't make anyone believe you. Tokerboy


 * Not the UN or EU recongizes Republic of Mecodonia. Its considered Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. So I dont understand why do Slavic Macedonians can have their nationlist views expressed and have the right to put Republic of Macedonia?If your going to use "Republic of Macedonia" then you MUST use "The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprius" as well. They both are not recongnized, so what are the rules? Chaldean 22:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There should be a reference to the alternative name as well. It is called neutrallity and i think it is right. 62.1.175.233 (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Religion in Albania
I see that Albania is considered to have Muslim majority, but it is not a clear cut case. Most people seeing such statements would be reminded of other Islamic countries, but there is a big difference in Albania. Most people who are considered Muslim now are just "born" into that description as a result of the Ottoman Empire influence from a long time ago. They do not adhere strictly to the 5 pillars. Although you can hear the call of prayer in Tirana and other cities, it is only because the government is really tolerant. There are no doubt "true" Muslims, but there are also many more people who just call themselves Muslim. People of different faiths intermarry without any prejudice. Also all holidays are observed by all people in some form. I think most people are generally religious (as in believing in a higher being), and there are a good deal of atheists (having resulted mostly from the communist regime). These are just my observations. Dori 03:50, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Is it different for Albanians in Kosovo and Macedonia, the Muslim population of Greece, and Bosniaks? Andres 08:05, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I am not sure, but I would speculate that this is the case for Albanians. In Greece, there are likely Muslims from other countries that would behave differently. For example, there was a big raucus over the issue of building the only mosque in Athens. This does not mean that all Albanian muslims behave this way, but I *suspect* that the majority does. All the media seems to leave this aspect out and instead focuses solely on stating that there are muslims in the balkans. I don't know if there are any studies anywhere, but I would be interested to know. Dori 16:31, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be really interesting. I wrote because I suspected that for example in Bosnia the situation was similar to that of Albania. Then your note should be extended. I think someone who knows might come across this page and inform us. Therefore I think open questions should be fotmulated on the Talk page. Andres 18:10, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Islam in many non-Arabic countries is different from 'Arabic Isalm', I'm not sure that we should consider it to be a less valid form, simply because it is different - the differences are probably worth noting though.


 * I would think that obeying the five pillars would be a basic requirement though. --Dori 13:00, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Peninsula or not
It seems to me that in this article inconsistency arises because the Balkan peninsula as a physical-geographical concept and the Balkans region as a human-geographical concept are confounded. If we accept the physical boundary along Danube, Sava and the Julian Alps, then a small eastern part of Rumania, a big southern part of Serbia (excluding Vojvodina) and a southern part of Croatia are included. Slovenia is excluded. When Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia were part of Yugoslavia, Yugoslavia partly belonged to the Balkan peninsula. When determining the boundaries of the Balkans region, we have no clear-cut criteria, and we are bound to have disputes because different nations have different ideas of the Balkans region. Andres 05:10, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * The whole idea of a peninsula is rather stretched. One could argue that the mentality of people from the Dalmatian coast is much less Balkan than of those in Slavonian plains, which would be the reverse of the above. The page should probably be renamed to "Balkans", it's simpler and avoids that issue. --Shallot 06:44, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I think then it would be better to have different articles for the peninsula and the Balkans region. I think there is a peninsula, and the peninsula should include Romania because the corner of the Black Sea is where Romania ends. But this is another issue how to define that peninsula. Andres 09:05, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Possibly. But then you'd probably get a heap of Romanians complaining how they are getting included in the infamous Balkan peninsula. It's a lose-lose situation, really :) --Shallot 17:26, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I think the article about the Balkan peninsula could include only physical geography along with the discussion of the existent different conceptions about its boundaries. Then hardly Romanians would complain. Andres 19:17, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * And it seems obvious that the border of the peninsula should run from near Rijeka to near the estuary of Danube (no, rather even the estuary of Dniestr) but how it runs leaves room for convention. Probably Danube is chosen either then the border has a more or less east-west direction. I am curious about that. Andres 21:51, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Let alone the fact that the original definitions of the word peninsula presumed an isthmus, which the Balkans simply don't have, quite the contrary. Its form doesn't even nicely fit the description of being land surrounded by water on three sides. It's really a lousy peninsula almost every aspect. :) --Shallot 12:12, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

So, should we go ahead and implement that? Probably first by moving this article to Balkans and then changing the peninsula article to include a discussion about it. --Shallot 23:23, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * If you split then please let the discussion of nature and natural resources remain in the article "Balkan peninsula". It also should contain the history of the concept of Balkan peninsula along with the different conventions, which still demands research. I only know that the term "Balkan peninsula" was coined by the German geographer August Zeune in 1808. Andres 06:02, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I'll just move the article to the shorter and more popular term "Balkans" until we figure out the content exactly. I'd hate to make a mess splitting them up. --Shallot 14:11, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * That's OK if you redirect it and mention the peninsula at the top. Andres 15:51, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Balkan communist states vs. Soviets
Yugoslavia, led by Tito, rejected the Soviet idea of merging with Bulgaria

Before 1948, it was Yugoslavia's idea somehow to "merge" with Bulgaria and Albania (see Communist and post-Communist Albania). Andres 06:24, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * In Stalin's grand scheme of things, the logical course of events would have been for all south Slavic nations to be in one union which would in turn become part of the Soviet union -- Tito and Dimitrov are simply mentioned to have talked about it in public. Obviously this didn't go particularly well because the different entities couldn't even begin to be made to function as one (an internal problem to Yugoslavia itself, in fact). --Shallot 06:44, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * That is probably right. But my concern is that as it goes, Tito is one-sidedly shown as just a victim though he himself seems to have been a smaller-scale imperialist who used to dream about swallowing in one or another form Bulgaria and Albania, and who knows, perhaps even Greece. Andres 19:27, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I see your point. Please feel free to rephrase that sentence. (Although Greece would be _really_ wishful thinking:) --Shallot 20:49, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't have enough knowledge to do this myself. I am not sure the whole issue should be mentioned in this article but if it is then more details are needed for accuracy and clarity. Andres 21:51, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Arvanites, Greeks, Albanians
The paragraphs about the Greek minority in Epirus and later Albanian immigrants in Greece fail to make clear which of them are Arvanites. I think those two paragraphs should be merged to attain more textual coherence and clarity. Andres 08:08, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In the resume of my previous note I inadvertently wrote "Albanian Greeks" instead "Albanians in Greece". But it seems that Greek minority in Albania also should mentioned here. Andres 08:21, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I gave it a shot at fixing this, but I suspect the whole minority thing should not be here since many countries in the balkans have minorities from other countries. I removed a bit about the Arvanites since it was too specific and is included in the article linked. For the record, I think capitalizing the section titles was a good idea :) Dori 05:12, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * You are right that in the present state the material about Albanian minorities is overweighed. But I think it would be better to compensate this by adding other material than by deleting this. My reasons: I think it is good to have a section or a separate article about ethnic minorities on the Balkan peninsula both because it helps to understand the ethnic composition of the population on the Balkan peninsula and because the minorities are an actual or potential source of tensions and so have an overall importance for understanding the political situation on the peninsula. Andres 08:05, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I understand this, but it is obvious that there are minorities in all the countries. Since in most cases there are no credible data (all official values are likely to be either overstated or understated) to be able to give specific values, the generality that would result would in my opinion would make the addition useless to the article. Anyone is of course wellcome to give it a shot and we can take it from there. Dori 16:27, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I understand that we don't have enough information. If we don't have numbers, we need not mention them. And I am not saying that you or I must do something or that this should be done right now. I am only noting desiderata. Andres 18:10, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ethnicity vs. nationality
I think it would be better to say "ethnic composition of population" because "nationality" is at least ambiguous, meaning citizenship and only secondarily meaning the belonging to an ethnic group. I didn't touch it because I don't know how to formulate the first sentence if the section about "nationalities". Andres 08:24, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Puzzling definitions
There is a strange thing in this article. The top implies that including Romania and Slovenia to the Balkans is not usual, and further it is said that normally Romania and Slovenia are included to the Balkans. Isn't that strange? Andres 19:08, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't know too much about Slovenia....but Romania IS "normally" included to the Balkans alot, thats for sure. if you look at the map you will see that Romania is alot bigger than other Balkan countries. so theres a big North Romania(Central Europe) and South Romania...seems like the same problem we have with the state of Kentucky if its South or Mid-Western and other states.

When we say that the Balkans include only the northern part of Greece then we exclude what without doubt belongs to the peninsula (with the exception of the islands)! So I still think that the article should be split.

And, I don't agree that "South East Europe" is an adequate term for the region. It seems to me that South East Europe must be the European South Russia. Andres 19:19, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well the Balkans are in South Eastern Europe, all of the countries (Balkans) east of Italy are called "South East Europe". I think the term is right. Many people dont think of European South Russia as South Eastern Europe. many people just think of it as simply "Eastern Europe". Because the Balkans are more South anyway than European Russia.


 * See why I wanted to move it to the generic "Balkans"? The definition changes on a whim, really :) User:Wetman now added another, slightly different definition, that's basically the mountaineous regions: Dinaric Alps, Balkan, Rodopa, &#352;ar and Pindus mountains. I've seen that definition used in a few places, it's no less valid than any other one. --Shallot 21:01, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I guess I see your point. You mean that &quot;Balkans&quot; is allowed to change on a whim while a peninsula is not? Anyway, I think decribing those changes is part of our task. Andres 21:55, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think that the peninsula definition is particularly less prone to changes than the other definitions are. We can document all of them in different pages or in one page, they're all pretty much linked. --Shallot 11:22, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Annoying
The very term "Balkans" is idiotic. It's a leftover from the 19th cent. geopolitics, and, the best thing would be to throw it into dustbin, along with "Mohammedans", "Slavonic races", "Indo-Germanic languages", "Cathay", etc.

Mir Harven


 * What is the right term then? Andres 20:41, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Just because it's annoying that doesn't make it go away. There's nothing wrong in explaining it. --Shallot 21:01, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * It's a common and useful geographic term - I know that there is a movement in the Balkans, particularly in Croatia, to try to have it renamed 'South Eastern Europe' or somesuch, but that's more to do with their own political ambitions than geography.


 * It's not too useful per se, and just because there's vague geographic support for the grouping that doesn't change the fact it's really a historical and political name. Cynics will note it's particularly useful when one wishes to lump everything together in one big amorphous mass. The content of the page already pretty clearly shows how there's much more to it. --Shallot 13:11, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

--

It's not all that cynical if you ever visited more than one Balkan country (to compare).. Gypsyish soul's "negative" connotation is only hot blood... War is just a part of it, every coin has two sides.

Budi mi silan, i dobro mi stoj! ;)

--

Politically correct censorship, eh ? Pathetic.

M H

[Below text by Mir Harven was removed by Dori around this point.]


 * 1. The right term is "SE Europe".
 * 2. *ALL CENSORED*,..were annoying and had to go away. Btw- no one, when referring o the "Balkans", considers that, geographically, "Balkanians" had been Euripides, Plato, Aristotle, Alexande the Great, Sophocles,...Evidently, the "Balkans" is a "state of mind". Caveman's, that is.

M H


 * It's not censorship. It's available in the history for anyone interested in it. I don't see it adding to the discussion in any way. It looked more like vandalism to me, which is why I removed it. --Dori 23:58, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * It wasn't vandalism, it was just his somewhat extreme point of view. He thinks Balkan is as offensive as *censored* etc -- this may seem unreasonable to you, but it is true that Balkan usually has a derogatory meaning these days, and it's also true that those called that way get to have an opinion on how they're called. His mentioning of the not so lousy stuff that came out of the otherwise dreaded Balkans also seems to be a valid point. I don't see why it should have been removed. --Shallot 11:22, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, restored the glorious comments. Wish M H would practice what he preaches though. --Dori 13:00, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Sure, but you know what they say, two wrongs don't make a right :) Thanks. --Shallot 13:11, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

-

Bitte ? I dont "preach" anything except the freedom of speech. But, if you refer to the "Balkans" and similar nonsense- this is a dated concept (and, more-it's not even a peninsula. Obsolete designation, not dissimilar to "Little Russians" (Ukrainians) or junk science a la psycholinguistics or memetics). As dated as Ptolemy or Freud.

M H

Romania
Is Romania in the Balkans, or what region?

It's considered both the Balkans and Central Europe, at least culturally southern Romania is Balkan.

Romania=Balkan. Central Europe would be like saying Lithuania=Nordic countries or Poland=Western Europe.

Okay, well actually I know Romania is Balkan, I just did'nt want people saying no its not etc..so I said both :). and Central Europe is more like Czech Republic,Slovakia,Hungary etc.

first of all... the Balkans are in central-south /south (for Greece) europe. I understand that "politically" it's southeastern Europe... but if u look at a map... u will see that Europe stretches as far as the Ural mountains in Russia. For example Romania, the country i'm from lies at a distance of 2100 km from the northern, western and eastern most tip of Europe and 1000 km from the southern most point(so geographically it is also south-central). (in the "regional organizations" section, only CEFTA and CEI are supporting what i am saying here..seems like the others were founded with a weird sense for geographical position)

moreover the "animated history of the Balkans from 1800 to 2006" is as far as Romanians are concerned wrong. Romania had 3 main regions: Transylvania, Valahia, and Moldova. Out of these 3 Transylvania was under habsburgic rule, but Moldova and Valahia where independent(i mean...with own chosen leaders, and army and territory) although they had to pay a huge amount of tribute to the ottomans(so they were vassals, unlike Bulgaria who was overrun and made part of the ottoman empire).

i don't know why the popularity of the term "south-eastern" in correlation with the Balkan states exist. probably in the same idea as "Israel is in Europe" part.. if Israel's geographically in Europe i'm gonna eat my hat this moment.

Numaru7 23:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Classical Antiquity
"In classical antiquity, this region was the most developed part of Europe as the center of the Greek-speaking world. " The northernmost edges of the Hellenic world in Antiquity lay in Epirus (Hellenized in the 3rd century BCE) and in Greek Macedonia (Hellenized in the 4th cenury BCE). The center of the Greek-speaking world in Antiquity would include the Aegean, the coast of Turkey Southern Italy and Sicily. "Most-developed" is hard to place, but the arc of coastal from Naples across France and down Spain to Gades, would be a candidate... Wetman 05:24, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I wasn't particularly convinced at that statement's applicability either, I merely elaborated the one reason that crossed my mind. The states of Greece and Macedon were certainly notable in the scope of the whole world at the time, so it makes some sense. --Shallot 19:55, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The sentence In classical antiquity, this region was a part of the Roman and later the Greek-speaking world seems to imply that first there was the Roman-speaking world, followed by the Greek-speaking. Not only is Roman-speaking nonsensical, the Greeks came before the Romans! This sentence should probably be rewritten to be clearer. 68.110.11.6 05:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Relax, this is Wikipedia. That incorrect material was added four days before your before post (18:32, 20 February, 2005) by an anonymous IP:. By 06:23, 24 February, it was corrected by an excellent editor, James 007:. --Alexander 007 17:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Romania and Slovenia
Romania and Slovenia are not in the Balkans. Balkan is a peninsula, not a region. It's boundary is river Sava with Dunav. If you look in to the map you will see that Romania and Slovenia are not south but north from this line. Also Vojvodina, a province of Serbia is not on the Balkans, but Ser&Mon is.


 * The Balkans is not a peninsula in the classic geographical sense - there's no clearly defined isthmus so the boundary is as much political and cultural as geographical. On this basis, Slovenia's cultural, historical and ethnic links with the south Slav nations of the Balkans means that it is often also classified as a Balkan country (though I know many Slovenes don't like that description). Similarly, Romania's shared history with the other Balkan states (especially its status as part of the Ottoman Empire) mean that it's also commonly regarded as a Balkan state.


 * What shared history? You comparing Slovenia's 73 years as part of Yugoslavia to over 1000 years of completely shared history with Austria? In contrast, for the majority of this time, Croatia and other former Yugoslav republics were under the influence of Hungary and/or the Ottoman empire.


 * Are you comparing Slovenia's 1000 years as a part of Austria to thousands of years of completely shared history in the Proto-Slavic community? Or even to milions of years of shared history with amphibians?
 * Comparing just the number of years doesn't really work. The order of events is very important. Yugoslavia was an important phase in recent Slovenian history and there is a substantial mutual intelligibality with other Southern Slavic languages, not to mention a sizable proportion of Slovenian population with relatives in other former Yugoslav republics. You are much more likely to hear the same music as in Ljubljana's clubs in Zagreb or Belgrade than in Vienna (apart from MTV hits). And most importantly, the aversion to the Balkans and popularity of Austria and other Middle European countries is far from universal in Slovenia and many Slovenians consider Slovenia to be a part of the Balkans, whatever their concept of the term is. Zocky 04:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a substantial mutual intelligibility between Slovak and some South Slavic languages - Slovene and Serbocroatian. But I think it's not a good reason to claim that Slovakia is a part of the Balkans. If we use linguistic criteria, then the argument is whether the language belongs to the Balkan linguistic union. The Slovenian language has no Balkan features at all. Neither do Croatian Kajkavian and Chakavian dialects. Serbian has some Balkan elements in grammar (the more to the south, the more balkanized the dialects are). Romanian, in turn, has a lot of Balkan features. Boraczek 10:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * There is nothing but political hostility in your ravings, Boraczek, what the beep are "Balkan linguistic features"?! You have no idea whatsoever of any, so much less South Slavic linguistics, nor you have any idea of people living in the region. Light years of study might help a bit, at least for you to articulate your hostility a bit more inteligently.--


 * Slovenia's cultural and historical links with Central Europe are much stronger than its links with the Balkans. The northern boundary of the Balkan peninsula is clearly defined. This boundary is arbitrary but long tradition makes it valid. Boraczek 08:38, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Name ANY except the nazi-fascist terrorization PLEASE! --


 * Err, there isn't much tradition to the northern boundary, whichever one you take... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   20:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The Kupa-Sava-Danube line was already accepted as the northern boundary 100 years ago. Probably it's much older, but I didn't check older sources to know when it appeared. Boraczek 09:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * You didn't check any sources at all, otherwise you just wouldn't bother. --


 * Well, if you're going to make that distinction, then also consider that Croatia was under the influence of Hungary and Austria for about the same time, and *not* the Ottoman Empire. It's really a moot point. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   20:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It depends on what part of Croatia you mean. There was a time when the northern boundary of the Ottoman Empire was a few kilometres south of Zagreb and only a small part of present-day Croatia belonged to Austria/Hungary. Boraczek 09:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Would it be possible to cite your source? As far as I know there was never a time when "the northern boundary of the Ottoman Empire was A FEW KILOMETRES south of Zagreb". If it were true, than by virtue of your logic this border would have been a few kilometres south of present-day Slovenia (or Austrian Styria) making that country Balkan. Furthermore, if we follow the same logic than we have to take into consideration that it wasn't until 1718 that the last portion of Hungary was liberated from the Turks that had held it from 1526. Is Hungary in the Balkans? No, I don't think so. Despite the fact that Zagreb was never taken by the Ottoman Empire which isn't the case with Buda (the capital of Hungary). Also, the siege of Vienna by the Turks doesn't make Austria or Vienna in the slightest bit Balkan. There are too many contradictions in this article and it is impossible for those who are intent on classifying Croatia as a Balkan country to prove their case by arguments which would be applicable to all countries concerned.


 * Quote: "The boundaries of the region are somewhat elastic," - what tha fuck is this supposed to mean? -- Milant 05:05, 31 Oct 2004


 * We're disagreeing about where the boundaries should be drawn - different sources say different things. See what I mean? -- ChrisO 09:49, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Please read the history of the article before interfering further. Heck, reading the article's "Definitions and boundaries" section would be sufficient. We can have this discussion N times but that's not going to change the simple fact that there are indeed many different definitions. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   22:21, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Every detailed description of the northern boundary of the Balkans in geographical (not political) sense I know says that the Kupa, Sava and Danube rivers form the boundary. Boraczek 08:38, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and encyclopedias describe the real world, not some science-based utopia. Deal with it... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   11:08, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If we were deciding how to divide Europe into regions with real geographical borders and differences in topography, IMO the Balkans would end on the Danube, Sava, then Savinja or even Sotla/Sutla and Mura, the Alps and the edge of the Karst plateau, including all the mountanious parts of Europe to the southeast of the Alps and excluding the Panonian plain. The Balkans would thus include most of Slovenia and Croatia, but not most of Romania.
 * But since the Balkans is also a politically defined region with touchy sensibilities involved, all we can do is explain the varios definitions. Zocky 14:33, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * If we adopt topographical criteria, the boundary would be as you described (but Karst and Istria should be included). The Balkans, however, are described as a peninsula and this is why topographical criteria are rarely taken into account. If we agree that the Balkans are a peninsula, then Kupa and Sava are the most logical natural boundary. And they are also traditionally considered the northern boundary of the Balkans. Boraczek 09:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sava is the boundary, not Kupa (at least for us who live in Slovenia)

Traditionally, the exact boundary is Kupa-Sava-Danube. Drawing the boundary to the spring of the Sava would bring about weird consequences - one would have to admit that a part of the Alps and of Italy lies within the Balkan peninsula. Besides, a glance at the map is enough to realize that Ljubljana, for example, does not lie within the mass of land which forms the Balkan peninsula. The statement that "for those who live in Slovenia the boundary is the Sava" surprises me, because a Slovenian friend of mine said she had learned at school that the Kupa was the boundary. So, once again: the Kupa is not only traditional, but also the most logical boundary. Boraczek 12:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I learned at school that Sava is the boundary. Today I went to check it and found it in the textbook for secondary schools, in the section about Balkan peninsula, written by dr. Mirko Pak. I found it also in the Lexicon of Cankarjeva zalozba (Cankar's publishing house), which is one of the most important Slovenian printed lexicons. I'll also check the information in the Encyclopedia of Slovenia next week.


 * Anyway, the use of Kolpa seems arbitrary to me. Perhaps the boundary should be the northern boundary of Dinarides, which is more to the north than Kolpa. --Eleassar777 16:44, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * And the use of the Sava and of the Danube does not seem arbitrary to you? :-)
 * The Sava is the boundary. But, as you surely know, the Sava does not rise in or fall into the Adriatic Sea. So the boundary has to leave the Sava at some point and go to tha Adriatic Sea, which constitutes the western boundary. Drawing the northern boundary along the Sava river to its springs is against the geographical tradition and, so to speak, against the reason. My guess is that this is a misunderstanding which stems from the fact that many encyclopaedias and books simply state that the Sava and the Danube form the northern boundary of the Balkan peninsula. This is correct, but it is obvious that this is only a rough description of the northern boundary, and not a full and detailed description which would allow to precisely draw the northern boundary on the map. The northern boundary of the peninsula is precisely defined, but rarely precisely described. The first approximation is "the Danube and Sava rivers". The second approximation is "the Danube, Sava and Kupa rivers" and this is how Enciklopedija Jugoslavije, which you will probably find in a Slovenian library, describes it. Chances are you will find Enciclopedia italiana, which gives a more detailed description of the boundary:
 * [Regione Balcanica] si attacca alla massa continentale europea lungo una linea che convenzionalmente è segnata dal corso del Danubio tra la foce e la confluenza della Sava, poi da questo fino alla confluenza della Kulpa, infine dalla Kulpa sino alla zona sorgentifica presso Ossiuniz, di dove il limite attraversa la linea di rilievi, paralleli alla costa orientale del Quarnaro, in quella parte più depressa che a mezzogiorno del Monte Nevoso segna il termine delle Alpi Giulie.
 * So, the boundary goes along the Danube river to the confluence of the Sava, then along the Sava river to the confluence of the Kupa, then along the Kupa river to its springs near Osilnica, then it crosses the Gorski Kotar (not named in the encyclopedia) and arrives at the Gulf of Quarner.
 * I have never seen any detailed description of the northern boundary of the Balkan Peninsula which stated that the northern boundary goes along the Sava river to its springs. I would be glad to know such a description if it exists, even though such a description would seem irrational to me. Best regards. Boraczek 23:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * P.S. I will visit Slovenia next week, so I will try to check Slovenian sources as well.

I can agree with you to the point that the boundary does not go along Sava all to its source. However, why Kolpa would be a boundary is not clear to me. --Eleassar777 09:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) P.S.: I hope you'll enjoy your visit to Slovenia.


 * Kolpa would be a boundary, so Slovenia would escape the definition. But it won't.


 * Well, the Kupa is the only big river in the region which is parallel and close to 45°20'N, i.e. the line from the Gulf of Quarner to the Danube Delta which cuts off the Balkan peninsula from the "mainland" like this:




 * Drawing the boundary along rivers and choosing the Gulf of Quarner and the Danube Delta as the northernmost points seems indeed to be quite arbitrary. Hvala! :-) Boraczek 11:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm back from Slovenia. I didn't have much time, so I only checked Enciklopedija Slovenije. It said that the northern boundary of the Balkan peninsula is conventionally established along the Danube, the Sava and the Kupa, and then it goes to the gulf of Rijeka. Boraczek 21:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) PS. I enjoyed my stay in Slovenia very much. I think Slovenia is very beautiful and interesting, but I don't find any Balkanic traits in it.


 * you have spent a bigger portion of your expose defining the geographical borders of the Balkans. What on earth should, then, the phrase "I think Slovenia is very beautiful and interesting, but I don't find any Balkanic traits in it." mean? As for the northern border of the Balkans, the Britannica goes as following: "In the extreme northwest of the Balkan Peninsula are the highest peaks of the Julian Alps, part of the main European Alpine system. These rise to 9,396 feet (2,864 metres) in Mount Triglav, one of the highest peaks in the Balkans."

NPOV and the Western use of the words "Balkans", "Balkanization" etc.
I am seriously concerned with this paragraph:


 * The distinct identity of the Balkans owes as much to its fragmented and often violent common history as to its mountainous geography. The region was perennially on the edge of great empires, its history dominated by wars, rebellions, invasions and clashes between empires, from the times of the Roman Empire to the latter-day Yugoslav wars. Its fractiousness and tendency to splinter into rival political entities led to the coining of the term Balkanization (or balkanizing). The term Balkan commonly connotes a connection with violence, religious strife, ethnic clannishness and a sense of hinterland.

I don't think it represents any kind of neutrality. It is one of the many ways the West looks at the Balkans, and one of the more harmful ones at that. Do you think anybody in the Balkans talks about "Balkanization"? Obviously not. In addition, it is trying to excuse the extensive harm done by the continuous involvement of the "Great Powers" in the Balkans through some kind of inherent "instability" in the region. In fact, the Balkan Peninsula is one of the most ethnically diverse regions in Europe and as such has managed to keep together pretty well over the millenia, when its inhabitants were managing their own affairs. Unless I hear a good justification for this opinion I will delete it or rework it as it is very biased and potentially insulting. I like the mountainous geography part. Mitkouwcad


 * That would be censorship, don't do it. It is indeed the most common view of the Balkans in the west, and that's pretty evident throughout the 20th century. It most certainly doesn't excuse the involvement of the great powers in any way, it merely explicates what the result of their involvement was. I agree, however, that the current verbiage is a bit too graphic. It should be rephrased back to how it was before, and extended to include the overview of international power involvement (it hints at it saying that it was "on the edge of great empires"). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   11:15, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this is the most common view of the Balkans. Maybe in some countries in the West it is, and those also happen to be the ones mostly involved with questionable benefits in the Balkans. And why should the West (which is only a fraction of the world) get such a prominent and biased view on this page? And isn't this an encyclopedia? This is clearly an opinion, not fact. It might be good for the BBC, with the language softened.


 * In addition, a lot of it is plain wrong, let me elaborate on this (I'll concentrate on the important parts):
 * fragmented and often violent common history &mdash; besides being an oxymoron, this statement is also an obvious case of weakly based generalization. Even as an opinion, it stands a lot of argument. The history of the Balkans has been more the one of fusion than the one of fragmentation. The two classical "fragmentation" events - The Balkan Wars and the recent Yugoslav Wars can at least partially be traced back to indiscriminate involvement of the Great Powers in the border-drawing process in the Balkans (The Treaty of Berlin, the Aftermath of World War I and so forth). In addition, the last two big wars in Europe were not brought on by Balkan nations, but by their much more "civilized" western neighbours.
 * perennially on the edge of great empires &mdash; This is some meaning of "great empires" and "perennially" I am not familiar with. Maybe if you mean the British Empire. The Ottoman, Byzantine, Bulgarian (not really an empire, but still), Roman and Macedonian (as in Alexander the Great and his dad) Empires all had a lot of their heart in the Balkans. Plus, why should history be about Great Empires, after all? Isn't it about the people?
 * violence, religious strife, ethnic clannishness and a sense of hinterland &mdash; This is the most spiteful and ethnically biased part, and I don't even feel a need to argue with it. It argues itself. Obviously whoever wrote it thinks there is such a thing as "better people" and "worse people" in this world and that he/she is from the better part. Consult The Ugly Duckling if you didn't read it when you were little (the part about the cat and the hen). In addition, it shows a lot of ignorance about the Balkans. There actually are many parts of the Balkans where ethnicities have lived together for centuries and such statements and the associated stereotypes can only do harm to such communities (and we've had enough harm, thank you!).


 * I don't want to censor anything, but I really like the Wikipedia project and this paragraph does it no credit. mitkouwcad


 * On another note, I went through the history of this paragraph and I think I am starting to understand where you are coming from. (Between "'Balkan' being a pejorative term acording to some" and the whole "Croatia and Greece don't necessarily feel themselves part of it".) I appreciate your point, but I still don't think it's exactly neutral the way it's presented. Maybe a change of wording? Or addition of something to the effect that some people do not feel Balkan is a pejorative term? I don't know, having been subjected to the whole "PC revolution" thing, I find myself thinking that it's not the actual terms that are harmful but the opinions of the people who use them. So whether you call someone "Nigger", "Negro", "Black" or "African American" it really doesn't matter, if you are inherently racist, but don't want to admit it and deal with it. mitkouwcad 01:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I am from the Balkans and I find the whole section biased and insulting. It is an obvious example of deductive reasoning.


 * Take the first paragraph. Since we "know" the Balkanites to be bloodlusting tribal barbarians then it is only too clear that "The identity of the Balkans owes as much to its fragmented and often violent common history". This isn`t "identity of the Balkans". This is a perception of the Balkans in the West, and as such should be titled so and not presented as fact.


 * In the second paragraph the story repeats itself. Because we "know" the term `Balkanisation` means fragmentation and refers to the Balkans, then it must be that the Balkans are a fragmentious place. Wrong. The word itself has been around for no longer than 10 years and it came around due to a break up of a single federal state in the Balkans. That doesn`t mean the rest of centuries and centuries of history were anything like that. (And in fact for the state in question to be formed in the first place multiple recognised and unrecognised states had to merge so you could by the same token argue the Balkans are a place of unifications.)


 * The third paragraph is OK but it is there just to lessen the effect of the first two, which shouldn`t appear in the introduction and under "The Balkans" in the first place.


 * The fourth and last paragraph again is bad. In this context it is both patronising and sounds of as an appology saying that not the whole of the Balkans is made up of the savages, its only the black sheep in the Western part while the East is OK. Also the EU mention here makes it sound like EU entrance is somekind of benchmark for civilisational level. I.e. since we "know" the civilised western EU takes in only civilised countries it follows that Bulgaria and Romania ain`t really that bad since they are in the EU. Stanimir 23:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have re-written the section now. I hope it will not be reverted. I admit that maybe it is not written as skillfully as what was removed (you can help with that and add to it and word it better), but at least the information contained is Balkano-centric in the sense that it presents the positive things of how the Balkanites themselves percive the region and its history (its own "identity") as opposed to the spotlight being on what the West thinks of it. Stanimir 01:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

origin of name "Balkan"
i'm very curious about this turkish word for mountain from which Balkan is derived. I know there is a region Balkh/Bokhara in Asia, where the ancient MassaGetae used to roam, the Massagetae arriving in Europe in present day Bulgaria as Alans (Ammianus Marcelinus called the Alans as "the former Massagetae") ... while the turkish word for mountain is "dag" Criztu 01:01, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The region takes its name from the Balkan mountains which run through the centre of Bulgaria into eastern Serbia, and the term 'Balkan' itself is derived from the Turkish word for mountain.


 * I read somewhere about the idea that Balkan could be derived from Blakh, with metathesis on the a/l and Romanian suffix "-an" (but of course, this is a bit silly :) Bogdan | Talk 14:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

this online dictionary http://www.seslisozluk.com/ says: 1. sırt. yükselti. tepe. dağ sırası. dağ silsilesi. çıkıntı. çapalanmış düz sıra. kabarık çizgi (toprak. deniz). 2. sırt. bayır. dağ sırası. 3. sırt. bayır. dağ sırası. çatı sırtı. kabartma çizgi. kabarık çizgiler oluşturmak. sırtlar meydana getirmek. yaka 1. i. dağ; yığın, dağ kadar büyük şey; azman. mountain ash üvez, bot. Sorbus americana. mountain chain dağ silsilesi. mountain lion puma, zool. Felis concolor. mountain range dağ silsilesi. mountain sheep Kanada koyunu, zool. Ovis canadensis. mount. 2. dağ. 3. dağ. yığın. aşırı miktardaki tarım ürünü. 1. i. kasaba; şehir; şehir halkı; şehrin iş merkezi. town and gown tüccarlar ile üniversite. town clerk kasaba sicil memuru. town council belediye meclisi. town crier şehir tellâlı. town hall belediye binası. town house şehirdeki ev; İng. belediye. 2. şehir. kent. kasaba. şehrin iş/alışveriş merkezi. çarşı. şehir halkı. 3. kasaba. şehir. şehrin iş merkezi.
 * One source I quickly found by googling says, "Balkan: From Turkish, balkh, 'high ridge,' 'high town.'" --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:38, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * ridge
 * mountain
 * town

I couldn't find a turkish word balkh or balq or anything close Criztu 14:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. (i). barometrenin yüksek olduğu bölge; argo esrar tesiri altında olma. on high gökte, semada.,yüksek,tam/bayat/yüksek,yükseğe/yüksekte. 2. yüksek. yüce. ulu. hayranlık uyandırıcı. (zaman) tam. (yiyecek) bayat. sarhoş. uyuşturucu etkisi altında. uçmuş. uçuşta. yükseğe. yüksekte. yüksek nokta. yüksek derece. doruk. büyük heyecan. coşku. mutluluk. yüksek yer. 3. yüksek. âli. mağrur. kibirli. kendini beğenmiş. azametli. yüce. muhteşem. görkemli. âlâ. tiz. yüksek perdeden. (et) kokmuş. kutuplara yakın. çok eski. baş. ağır. coşkun. (neşeli) taşkın. pahalı. şiddetli. sert. (deniz) azgın. asil. soylu. esrarın tesiri a.
 * high

aham... perhaps bölge is at the origin of Balkans Criztu 14:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know, but in Bulgarian балкан does mean "mountain", although it could be that this is a consequence of the fact that the Balkan mountains are the most prominent mountain in Bulgaria. The etymology of the word in Bulgarian is not very clear, though. The confusion might also come from the fact that the Ottomans are far from the only Turkic tribe to have left their mark on the Balkans. To the Googler I want to say that anything found in this way has the factual power of a rumor, if that. mitkouwcad 23:56, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That makes little sense, but what the heck. If using a search engine somehow invalidates the information gleaned through it, I guess the net is per se worthless. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:34, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I didn't mean to be so rough. I didn't want to say it invalidates it, one just has to be careful. Like in the case one hears a rumor. mitkouwcad 02:34, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There's a lot of garbage information on the net (not excluding Wikipedia.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * the usual bulgarian word for 'mountain' is "planina", while "balkan" too is listed as bulgarian for 'mountain', but seems to be in relation with the Balkans Criztu 10:54, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I can tell you that it is still currently used to mean "any mountain", although it has a quaint feeling to it. It would be interesting to see at what time the specific usage of "Balkan" for the &#1057;&#1090;&#1072;&#1088;&#1072; &#1055;&#1083;&#1072;&#1085;&#1080;&#1085;&#1072; mountain began. That might throw some light on the question. mitkouwcad 22:17, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An anonymous has now changed this to
 * balkan or balkanl&#305;k, for "mountainous terrain with thick forests"

Google confirms the existence of this word, but I can't read Turkish... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   21:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Although the theory sounds superficially plausible, I haven't found any source that makes the connection between *belgh and the Balkans. Wikipedia is not a place for original research, so please provide sources before putting this etymology back into the article. Zocky


 * and the term 'Balkan' itself might come from an ancient Turkish word (balkan or balkanl&#305;k) for "mountainous terrain with thich forest".- please provide reference --User:Criztu 17:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Greece
I have done some online research on the ethnic composition of Greece mainly due to the claims of an editor of this article. I would appreciate any input on the following analysis, facts & figures, providing as many academic, scientific or governmental resources and citations as possible.

CIA world fact book 2005, claims the official statistics to be:
 * Greek   98%
 * Other    2%

The Eurominority group (which does not have or proclaim any European Union affiliation) speculates that INTEREG 1994 program (within EU) may provide some different estimates. Unfortunately, they provide no reference what-so-ever as to how those estimates where calculated and into what degree (if any) INTEREG'94 program provided statistical data of such nature.

They claim: 60,000 to 100,000 (0.6% to 0.9% of the total population) Arvanites 90,000 Turks (0.8% of the total population) , 40,000 to 100,000 (0.4 to 0.9%) Macedonian Slavs , 56,000 (0.5%) Pomaks 40,000 (0.4% of the total population) Aromanians. No data for Roma.

Using the highest end of any estimate:
 * (Not including the Roma but considering any of the above groups as non-Greek)
 * Greek       96.5%
 * Other        3.5%

GREEK HELSINKI MONITOR (GHM) & MINORITY RIGHTS GROUP – GREECE (MRG-G), Report about Compliance with the Principles of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (along guidelines for state reports according to Article 25.1 of the Convention), 18-09-1999  further speculates: 200,000 to 300,000 (1.8% to 2.7% of the total population) Roma (Gypsies), 50,000 (0.5%) Turks (less than the Greek government estimate), 30,000 (0.3%) Pomak, 7,000 to 10,000 (0.06 to 0.9%) Slav Macedonian (according to recent election results) and 5,000 (0.04 %) Jews.

and identifies as a linguistic, not an ethnic or national, group the 200,000 (1.8%) population with Arvanite origin, 200,000 (1.8%) population with Vlach origin.

Using the highest end of any estimate
 * (Considering Arvanites & Vlachs as non-Greek and assuming that all the rest have also a non-Greek ethnical identity):
 * Greek   92%
 * Other    8%

However, the report concludes that "the combined figures for those with a non-Greek national identity indicate that they do not exceed 1% of the 11 million population. Besides the numerous groups of Roma, Arvanites/Arberor, Vlachs/Aromanians, a few Meglenopromanians, and a small number of Jews, no one among them proclaims nowadays a non-Greek national  identity: whereas a few among them have what can be described as a corresponding ethnic identity, along the national one..." Thus giving: Further for the illegal economic migrants they claim: "The most numerous group though is that of the usually recently arrived (during the 1990s), mostly illegal immigrants, estimated even by state authorities to around 700,000 people (6% of the total population), of which some 220,000 (2% of the total population) were in 1999 in the process of being legalized. So, among the residents of Greece, 7% have a non-Greek national identity and another 7% have a Greek national identity but also an ethnolinguistic and/or religious specificity." Thus giving: Or:
 * Greek    99%
 * Other     1%
 * Greek                                                                 86%
 * Greek (with an ethnolinguistic and/or religious specificity)           7%
 * Illegal immigrants (All)                                               6%
 * Other                                                                  1%
 * Greek (All)                      93%
 * Other (All)                       7%

ENCARTA 2005 claims:


 * (Not including the illegal immigrants)
 * Greek       more than   95%
 * Other         less than    5%

and estimates the illegal immigrants of the 1990s from 500,000 to 800,000 (4.5% to 7%)

Richard Clogg, M.A. Fellow, St. Antony’s College, Oxford University. Article: "Greece," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2005

It seems to me that, whichever source anyone choose to follow, Greece is a highly ethnically homogeneous country, and is considered (by non-Greek sources) as such. --Ninio 01:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * No mention of Albanians? There are between 500,000-1,000,000 (in addition to the Arvanitas and Çam) of them living in Greece. Most have had to change names and/or religon to get work, education, and papers. I have close friends lving there, pretending to be Greeks or their own Greek friends would spit on them. I imagine illegal immigrants of other ethnicities do the same if they can. Dori | Talk 03:43, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * They are included in the economic migrants of the 1990s category. The first two sources (CIA world factbook and Eurominority) do not give any estimates of the 1990s migration. The GHM & MRG-G (1999) talks about 700,000 and Encarta about 500,000 to 800,000. May I ask how did you come with your estimate? --Ninio 03:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The 500,000 number I saw mentioned in an official greek government document (on the web) a couple of years back (so I am taking that as the lower bound), the 1,000,000 number I've seen from some Albanian sources so I am taking that as the higher bound. The real number is somewhere in between, but I doubt it's possible to determine (if I had to guess out of my noggin' I would say about 700,000). You can find some more guesses in these articles:    (US State Department estimates 600,000-800,000). Dori | Talk 04:55, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

The presence of Slavs in the region of Thessaloniki is important from the political, cultural, historical and linguistic points of view. Please notice the issue of the name of FYROM and the origins of the Old Church Slavonic language, for example. Hence, I'm bringing the mention of the Slavic minority back. You are welcome to add any estimates. I don't, because I consider the estimates very uncertain (since Greece supresses any research on the Slavic minority). Boraczek 09:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Your statement is incorrect. All the "Slavs" from the region of Thessaloniki, as well as from the whole central and eastern Greek Macedonia were either expelled as Bulgarians to Bulgaria in 1913 as a result of the Second Balkan War, or resettled, again as Bulgarians and again to Bulgaria, as a result of a voluntary population exchange agreement in the 1920s. Since then there have been Slavs in Greece only in western Greek Macedonia (Kastoria, Florina and Edessa), the majority of which was dispersed and again expelled but this time to FYROM during the Greek Civil War. At present, there is a Macedonian Slav minority in Greece only in the Florina disrtict, along the border with FYROM, and it is usually appraised at some 10,000. About the expelling of the Bulgarians in 1913: *[/en/carnegie/ Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (1914). Report of the International Commission To Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars. Washington: The Carnegie Endowment.]


 * The rest you can find in: Collective memory, national identity, and ethnic conflict : Greece, Bulgaria, and the Macedonian question by Victor Roudometof (2002) VMORO 13:06, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)~

Dear VMORO, I'm sorry, but I can't agree with some things you wrote.
 * I think the territory inhabited by Slavs (like, for example, villages of Sugo and Visoka famous for their archaic dialect) is close enough to Thessaloniki to be termed "Thessaloniki region". But I don't insist on using this name. Suho and Visoka are situated in the region of Central Mecedonia and their inhabitants were NOT expelled during or after the civil war.
 * Some of the Bulgarians in Suho and Visoka did leave for Bulgaria both during the Balkan Wars and then again in the the 1920's. The Slavs who stayed in Central and Eastern Macedonia were the adherents of the Constantinople Patriarchate who even before the Balkan Wars regarded themselves as Greeks.
 * Nonetheless, Suho and Visoka are still inhabited by Slavic-speaking people. Boraczek 20:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * They are not, they have been Hellenised. And they cannot in any way be labeled as "Macedonian Slavs". There are certainly people in the Florina district who declare themselves as Macedonian Slavs as can be seen by the communal elections where the Macedonian Slav party "Rainbow" won several seats in the communal council, but there aren't such people in the Thessaloniki region. VMORO 13:41, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)~


 * Since the policy of the Greek government towards the Slavic minority becomes less and less opressive, some of my professors and colleagues went to Greece a few years ago to gather some dialectological material. They were in Suho and Visoka and they met some Slavic-speaking people. So, as you can imagine, your conviction, your expert-pose and your reference to Roudometof do not convince me. If you, and possibly Roudometof, claim that there are no Slavic-speaking people in the region of Central Macedonia, you are simply wrong. The presence of Slavic speakers in the region of Thessaloniki is also attested by other scholar sources, for example:


 * Victor Friedman, Macedonian, SEELRC, 2001, pp. 6-8, 77
 * Bla&#382;e Koneski, Istorija na makedonskiot jazik, Kultura, Skopje 1986, p. 9
 * Zuzanna Topoli&#324;ska, Bo&#382;idar Vidoeski, Polski-macedo&#324;ski. Gramatyka konfrontatywna (zarys problematyki). Zeszyt 1. Wprowadzenie, Ossolineum, Wroc&#322;aw 1984, p. 54


 * Whether those Slavic speakers may be called Macedonian Slavs depends on the definition, of course. If we define "Macedonian Slavs" as "autochtonous Slavic speakers living in Macedonia", then they comprise the speakers in question. The definition of "Macedonian Slavs" as "people who vote for a Macedonian party in elections" is nonsensical and I guess you do not really want to defend it. You seem to be in favor of another possible defnition, which is based on identity: Macedonian Slavs are people who feel themselves Macedonian Slavs (and their small children). But in this case drawing conclusions on identity from self-declaration would require that 1) people had an occasion to express their ethnic identity 2) social conditions allowed free and open expression of one's identity. Both assumptions does not hold in the case of Greek Slavs. Boraczek 18:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Slavs were not expelled to the FYROM during the Greek Civil War. This is an obvious mistake of yours. Please notice that the Greek Civil War ended in 1949 and the FYROM started to exist in 1991.
 * To the Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Macedonia. Your objection is ridiculous - it seems you are raising it only for the sake of objecting something.
 * I just corrected your obvious mistake. Boraczek 20:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't really agree with that but whatever. VMORO 13:41, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)~
 * The statement that the Slavs were expelled to the FYROM during the Civli War is an obvious mistake. The statement that the Slavs were expelled to Yugoslavia during the Civil War is at best a blatant simplification. A casual reader should not be misleaded by these phrases. Boraczek 18:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as the number of members of the Slav minority is concerned, estimates vary to an enormous degree and high estimates are not rare. For example, in 1994 Human Rights Watch estimated that the Slavic speakers in Greece may be as many as 250,000 (Human Rights Watch/Helsinki, The Macedonians of Greece, Human Rights Watch, New York 1994).
 * There is a considerable difference between "Slav speakers" and "Macedonian Slavs" - which you don't seem to understand as the vague term "Slav" in your edit links directly to the article Macedonian Slavs. Human Rights Watch is hardly the best source you can quote, its articles are usually prejudiced and its criteria are dubious. I can certainly agree that some 200,000 people in Greece have Slavic ORIGINS. Considering, however, that, they, especially the Patriarchists, have had education only in Greek for the past 200 years, the chances for them to be speakers are quite slim. Pls, read some Roudometof before you quote again such a statistics, I am well acquainted with all of them.
 * If you object to the link to "Macedonian Slavs", I will change it. Actually, I didn't check where the link led.


 * Reliability of HRW is of marginal relevance here and I won't discuss it. I quoted their estimate to show how much estimates diverge (of course, different criteria also play their role) and that some of the estimates are very far from 10,000.


 * As for your speculation "the chances for them to be speakers are quite slim" after "education only in Greek for the past 200 years", let me encourage you to get acquainted with linguistic, sociological and ethnological literature related to linguistic/ethnic minorities in general, and the Slav minority in Greece in particular. Whatever progress of Hellenization might have been, undoubtedly there are still Slavic-speaking areas in Central and West Macedonia. Boraczek 20:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Only in northwestern Macedonia - and I have provided references. If you want more references, I can certainly give you with additional ones. As for the literature you suggest I should read: 1)I have a degree in linguistics 2)My grandparents come originally from Kukush (now Kilkis) in Central Macedonia, therefore my interest 3)I am afraid I have read much more than you about the topic in question - but you can anyway provide some references, one can never stop learning VMORO 13:41, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)~


 * See above for references. Boraczek 18:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But even if you were right, your comment would not justify deleting the information about the Slav minority in Greece. You did not question its existence or its relevance. You only questioned that Slavs live in Central Macedonia. So I'm bringing the deleted part back and may I ask for an explanation: why did you delete it without giving any relevant reasons on the discussion page? Boraczek 21:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can I ask you for an explanation as to why - since I have proved that the majority of the Slavs of Central and Western Macedonia were expelled to Bulgaria as Bulgarians and those who remained were of the so called Greek party - you have reverted again your incorrect explanation? VMORO 21:35, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)~


 * You did not "prove" anything, you simply stated that Macedonian Slavs only live in the Florina district, which, even if it had been true, would have not justified your deletion. The information I inserted was correct and your deletion was not explained, that's why I restored the information. Sorry for the reversion. And thanks for having left the note about Slavs. Boraczek 20:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

''The est. no. of Slavic speakers in Greece ( >0.9%) is no more different than that of Albania or Bulgaria. In Serbia the % is much higher. Large minorites in *other* countries are not mentioned at all''

Yes, undoubtfully the % of Slavic speakers in Serbia is much higher. So is the % of Slavic speakers in Bulgaria, as Serbs and Bulgars are Slavic speakers. But I don't see why this should be a reason to suppress the information about the Slavic speakers in Greece. If other large minorities are not mentioned, maybe this is a reason to mention them, but not to suppress another piece of information. I explained why IMO the Slav minority was important and should have been mentioned. My arguments were not answered. If you think that the low number of Slavic speakers makes them irrelevant, why don't you mention that number and let the reader decide if this is relevant? I consider the deletion unsubstantiated. Kind regards. Boraczek 20:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Because there is no sizeable Slavic (or Macedonian Slavic) population in Greece. The arguments were clearly presented in the previous posts.
 * But you admit that there IS a Slavic group in Greece. If there is a small Slavic minority in Greece, this is a reason to write that there is a small Slavic minority in Greece rather than a reason to suppress information about this minority. I openly said that any data about the size of the minority were welcome and might be put in the article. But you prefered to suppress any information about the minority, which is not justified by your explanation that the miority is not numeruous. I'm asking again - why don't you let the reader decide if the minority is numerous enough to be noticeable or not? Boraczek 12:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * See following post --Ninio 20:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The key issue here is impartiality.
 * I don't think my edits were biased. I wonder what side in your opinion I am for and what action of mine violated the principle of impartiality. Boraczek 12:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * It is biased in the sense that you are insisting on that level of detail for only one country. If indeed a thorough breakdown is preferable for one case then this should and must apply for every other case. It is not that hard to add the same information in Albania, Bulgaria, Serbia & Montenegro, Crotia, Romania etc.In addition, ALL other ethnic/ethnolinguistic/ religious groups for EVERY state, many of whom are highly numerous, must be analytically referred. --Ninio 20:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The percentage of Slavic speakers in Greece, which you, a priori considered only as Macedonian Slav is said to be around 0.9% of the total population. Even if we assume that this specific group is non-Greek, the magnitude of the number does not justify this sentence: "and a smaller Slavic minority in Macedonia", because it gives the (false) impression of a sizeable minority comparable to the 120,000-strong Muslim one.
 * First, I don't classify Slavic speakers in Greece a priori as Macedonians. On the contrary, I was careful not to classify them as Macedonians, Bulgars or Slavophones. They undoubtedly can be called "Macedonian Slavs" in the sense "Slavic-speaking people living in Macedonia". As the WP article "Macedonian Slav" gives another definition, I removed the link to it.
 * Second, INTEREG estimated that there were 100,000 Macedonians in Greece. According to these data the Slavic minority is indeed comparable to the Muslim one. If you thought that the article gave an erroneous impression as to the size of the minority, a logical solution would have been to include information about the size or to change the wording and not to delete any information about the minority. Again, your explanation does not justify your action. Boraczek 12:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not suppressing any information. This is an article about Balkans and if a patent is followed though out the article about a state, then this should apply to each and every state in the region. About that &#8216;Slavic group&#8217; you are referring to, please read carefully the rest of my post and preferably revise the previous posts of this discussion.


 * First of, I&#8217;ve never said 'Macedonians'; I &#8216;ve said 'Macedonian Slavs' and we all know the important difference of these two terms.
 * Second, INTERREG &#8216;94 did *not* estimated, speculated or edorsed an 100,000 &#8216;Macedonian Slav&#8217; population in Greece. The Eurominority group&#8217;s website claims  it did.


 * That group is consisting by four 'executive' members (http://www.eurominority.org/version/en/ome-presentation.asp) and claims cooperation (of unspecified degree of involvement) with some foreign correspondents (http://www.eurominority.org/version/en/ome-membres.asp) *no-one* of whom is (or corresponds) from Greece.


 * They provide NO annotation and/or citation what-so-ever as to how they (eurominority group) derived these numbers and into what degree, *if any*, the &#8220;INTEREG&#8217;94&#8221; provided credible statistical data of such nature.


 * More specifically, by "INTEREG 1994", that group should refer to, one or both of these programs:


 * INTERREG I (1990-1993)
 * INTERREG II (A, B, & C, 3 main programs) between 1994 and 1999.


 * I'm afraid you mistook INTERREG (a EU program) for INTEREG (International Institute for Ethnic-Group Rights and Regionalism). Boraczek 08:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I could not find a *single* reference in the official (online) published documents of the above programs that even *remotely suggests* a research of &#8216;census-type&#8217; data in the &#8216;Balkan&#8217; region. Some online sources that I have investigated are:


 * http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/interreg3/inte2/inte2.htm (all available links, published documents and downloads)


 * http://www.interreg.ch/6E568C740BE64E9885DAEC4D076159FE.htm (all available links, published documents and downloads)


 * http://www.kepemep-cree.org/NetWet/InterregIIC_gb.html (all available links, published documents and downloads)


 * http://www.nordregio.se/Files/CADSESEx-Post.pdf
 * http://www.cadses.net/
 * http://www.cadses.net/files/Final_report_CADSES_IIC.pdf (INTERREG IIC)


 * and many more, including some Italian and German sites/reports about INTERREG I/II/III because I have a (moderate) basic understanding of these languages.


 * NO DATA for any ethnic group in any country is provided by the published documents that I could find.


 * Giving the benefit of the doubt to them, I have analysed the data Eurominority group provides (only for this case, even though every other case needs attention).


 * The lower bound (40,000 -1951) seems to be derived from the official census data of Greece (1951) which claimed 40,017 *Slavic Speakers* (roughly 0.5% of its total population in 1951). This figure does *not* refer to people that may) considered themselves as &#8216;ethnic (Mac) Slavs&#8217;. In fact, a large part of this population was considering itself as &#8216;ethnic Greek&#8217;. The arguments are clearly presented in the previous posts by VMORO.


 * But let&#8217;s assume that a (large or small) part of that population was considering itself as non-Greek and/or as &#8216;ethnic Macedonian Slav&#8217;.


 * Two key points are:


 * 1)The settlement (of people that considered itself as Macedonian Slav and/or Bulgarian) to the ex-Communist/Socialist Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Bulgaria, during and after the Greek Civil War (1944-1949).


 * 2)The massive economic immigration that underwent during the following period (15 years, from early 1950s to late1960s). A large part of the Greek population during that period migrated to countries as Australia, Canada, Germany and the United States. A sizeable part of this immigration wave was &#8216;Slavic speakers&#8217; (of whom some may considered themselves as &#8216;Macedonian Slavs&#8217;) and established their communities mainly in Australia, Canada and to a lesser degree the U.S.; a large part of the &#8216;Macedonian Slav&#8217; communities currently present in the above countries are these people (or descendants of).


 * In shorts, at least a sizeable part of that 0.5% of Slavic *Speakers* (of whom an unspecified number MAY considered itself as &#8216;Macedonian Slav&#8217;) have migrated by the end of 1960s.


 * For the higher bound Eurominority (not E.U. nor INTERREG I /II /III)speculates some 100,000 Macedonian Slav (but why they pseudo-quote "INTEREG 1994" is a mystery),I can only speculate that they:


 * Erroneously, considered every Slavic Speaker of 1951 as Macedonian Slav. Many considered themselves as Greek, being mostly bilingual, some as Bulgarian and some as Mac Slavs.


 * Erroneously, did not consider the migration wave of the 1950s and 1960s.


 * Erroneously, they assumed that 40,000 people from the 1951 became 100,000 in 1994.


 * I think it is very risky to embark on speculations like this, because we actually do not know how INTEREG estimated the number of Macedonian Slavs. Boraczek 08:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Even by assuming that:
 * All 40,000 (1951) were considering themselves *only* as Macedonian Slavs, and
 * that they did *not* join the following migration wave at all, and
 * The actual population growth of Greece (from 1951 approx. 7,500,000 to 1994 approx. 10,500,000),
 * Then the number of potential Slavic Speakers (I won&#8217;t explain again) population becomes around 55,000 in 1994. I hope that you can understand why even this number does NOT really represent a Macedonian Slav population.


 * If you are estimating the number of Slavic speakers, the assumption about their identity is irrelevant. The estimate of 55,000 would rather assume that the data from the Census 1951 are correct and that the population growth of the Slavic group was more or less the same as the overall population growth in Greece. Anyway, we should keep in mind the No original research policy. Boraczek 08:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The actual population that may consider itself as Macedonian Slav does not seem to exceed 10,000 people in Greece (1999)."Indeed, the political party &#8220;Rainbow&#8221; which was created in 1994 and has campaigned for the recognition of a national Macedonian minority, received 7,300 votes in 1994 and 5,000 in 1999, two elections it contested alone: these figures correspond to some 7,000-10,000 citizens of all (not just voting) ages. One can estimate that besides this &#8220;hard core&#8221; there may be other citizens voting for mainstream parties that also espouse this identity, hence the above estimate."


 * I'd say the election results suggest that the Macedonian Slavs (as a "nationally conscious" group) are much more numerous than 10,000. As evidence from other European countries shows, the biggest part of a minority group usually do not vote for their minority parties, due to using non-national criteria of selection, due to strategic voting, etc. Boraczek 08:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * That&#8217;s roughly 0.09% of its total population and hence surely not comparable to the 1% Muslim population. --Ninio 20:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * But you claim that 0.09% are those Macedonian Slavs who have a non-Greek national identity. Can not a Muslim consider himself a Greek? If he can, than all Muslims do not constitute a separate national group. You can either compare the number of people who have a Macedonian (Slav) national identity with the number of people who have a Muslim national identity, or the number of Slavs as members of a minority linguistic group with the number of Muslims as members of a minority religious group. It does not make too much sense to compare Macedonian Slavs with a non-Greek national identity only with all Muslims with different (or simply Greek) national identities. To make a logically valid comparison, you need to specify the level of comparison - either you compare national groups (people who have a national identity) or you compare ethnic groups (people who are connected by common language, religion, etc.) Boraczek 09:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Further if indeed is needed to analytically breakdown the ethnic/linguistic/religious maps of a country then this must be done (as impartially as possible) for each and every state in the region. For example, the percentage of 'Macedonian Slavs' in Albania and Bulgaria is similar to that of Greece. In Serbia & Montenegro that percentage is much, much higher.
 * That&#8217;s what I've meant about the "Slavic speakers" in Albania, Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia & Montenegro. --Ninio 20:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "Slavic speaker" is a person which is a (native, implicitly) speaker of a (or the) Slavic language. Serbian and Bulgarian are Slavic languages. Boraczek 12:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I like to think that I understand quite well the differences of a Macedonian, a Slavic Speaker in Macedonia, a Slavic Speaker in general,  a Macedonian Slav. I've never mixed any of the above in the main article --Ninio 20:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Further if indeed is needed to analytically breakdown the ethnic/linguistic/religious maps of a country then this must be done (as impartially as possible) for each and every state in the region. For example, the percentage of 'Macedonian Slavs' in Albania and Bulgaria is similar to that of Greece. In Serbia & Montenegro that percentage is much, much higher.
 * That&#8217;s what I've meant about the "Slavic speakers" in Albania, Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia & Montenegro.
 * "Slavic speaker" is a person which is a (native, implicitly) speaker of a (or the) Slavic language. Serbian and Bulgarian are Slavic languages. Boraczek 12:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems that, this part of your argument is silly and (deliberately?) impartial.
 * In case an editor wishes to tackle that breakdown (considering ethnic, linguistic, ethno- linguistic, religious, cultural or other factors) in the 'Balkans' then, at least logic dictates, that he/she needs to start with the most populous groups.If you had the time and/or the willingness to check the recent edit history of this article maybe you would had noticed such an example:

00:39, 6 Feb 2005 Ninio
 * You are free to restore that version. I never opposed it (there's some room for improvement though). So far your argument resolves itself to "the article gives inexact information about Albania, Bulgaria and Serbia and Montenergo, so it should also give inexact information about Greece". I think this is not a good attitude in respect to the goal of improving Wikipedia articles. Boraczek 12:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * All the parts of your argument are answered and it is you that you have to provide credible evidence to support any (further) valuable objections.
 * My regards Ninio 00:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I briefly explained why I think the presence of Slavic-speaking people in Greece is important and should be mentioned. This argument was not answered at all. Boraczek 12:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Then why do you not refer to them a Slavic-speaking people in Greece but rather as 'Macedonian Slavs&#8217;?
 * Further more, why do you refer to them as 'Macedonians' since you know the important differences between those terms, the ambiguity and controversy created by applying the term 'Macedonian' only to the 'Slavic speakers' of Macedonia (region)?
 * If you and your sources distinguish them as a linguistic group, why do you not clearly state that?
 * What exactly those claimed sources are saying? -- Ninio 22:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * By Macedonians I mean a Slavic nation which now has its own state governed from Skopje. Whether the Greek government likes it or not, the term "Macedonians" is already used in this sense.
 * Slavic speakers are people who speak Slavic as their native language.
 * Macedonian Slavs is a very confusing and ambiguous term. It seems to mean "Slavs from Macedonia". But you seem to use this term to denote people who have a Macedonian (Slav) identity.
 * 'Slavs are not a nation, and they are hardly an ethnic group. They are rather a conglomerate of ethnic groups which have one thing in common: they speak Slavic languages. Since the criterion of distinguishing Slavs is linguistic, Slavs can be identified with Slavic speakers and Slavic peoples. Given this, the same individual can be a Slav and a Greek at the same time and be classified as a "Slavophone Greek". Boraczek 09:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm waiting for your answer. I've refrained from editing the article as my intention is not to get involved in an edit war, but rather to try to resolve the dispute in a peaceful manner. Kind regards. Boraczek 12:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I will try to rewrite the ethnic part, using Ninio's version mentioned earlier as the base. Please don't touch the article untill I finish. Discussion on the talk page is welcome. Boraczek 18:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I've finished for today. Comments are welcome. Massive and undiscussed reversions are not. Boraczek 19:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Why did you referred to the (ambiguous at best) &#8220;estimates&#8221; of Eurominority group as &#8220;estimates&#8221; from INTEREG?
 * 2) Further more, why did you use these ambiguous &#8216;estimates' ONLY for Greece (and only the Roms population of Bulgaria)?
 * That site provides 'estimates' for every country in region, as follows:
 * Albania
 * Bosnia & Herzegovina
 * Bulgaria
 * Croatia
 * Moldova
 * Romania
 * (Former Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia
 * Serbia and Montenegro
 * Slovenia
 * Turkey
 * 3) Why did you chose to ignore every other reference (official or not) that provides clear and thorough out analysis of the ethnic/ethnoliguistic/religious compositions {e.g. for Greece the GREEK HELSINKI MONITOR (GHM) & MINORITY RIGHTS GROUP - GREECE (MRG-G)}?


 * Please answer these questions. My regards -- Ninio 21:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * First, thank you for refraing from editing the article before discussing it. Second, I'd like to say that I really appreciate your detailed research on the subject.
 * Now, to the questions.
 * 1) Eurominority mentions INTEREG as the source of the esitmates. So according to the Eurominority site the estimates come from INTEREG rather than from Eurominority. Warning: this is INTEREG and not INTERREG. You can see their website here: . I feel kind of discomfort when citing second-hand data like this, but I couldn't find any better solution at the moment.
 * Even though I had indeed noticed that 'misspelling', the question still remains.
 * How these groups (Intereg and Eurominority) derived those ambiguous 'estimates'?
 * The site you are citing does not provide -again- any references what-so-ever about the methodology, the collection of data, the analysis, even the numbers claimed by Intereg group itself. -- Ninio 01:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * 2) Just because other data from Eurominority were not present in the version of the article from 6 Feb. Generally, I didn't add new data (except for Serbs in Croatia and Macedonians in Bulgaria), I just restored data from an older version. I don't object adding data from Eurominority for other countries at all.
 * I do. They are providing very ambiguous, uninformative data with no analysis, no references and a highly degree of bias. For example, it seems that the 'Macedonian Slav' data (in *every state* of the region, not only Greece) are compiled by a Macedonian Slav himself; "Mr. Darko GAVROVSKI (Secretary of the group) International law graduate at the University in Skopje)".But for being there I presume it is endorsed by the group itself. -- Ninio 01:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Just because they were not present in the version from 6 Feb. The report from GHM is more than valuable. It seems to be very reliable. Thanks for bringing it here.
 * That report was analysed in the very first post (of the thread, I&#8217;ve created here). It seems that you did not even read my analysis in the first place but still you were quick to object to it. I am sorry, but I do not appreciate this behaviour.


 * Maybe I did not make it clear enough. I simply restored your own version as a base for further development and rewrote some parts to make it more concise and neutral. If you want to criticize the data or omission of some data in the article, you have the same reason to criticize yourself as to criticize me, as they are data from your own version. Your activity would me more productive if you add data in the article instead of adding them on the talk page and then criticizing others for not including them in the article. BTW, I did read your post. Boraczek 10:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * GHM and MGR-G can be considered as the biggest critics of ALL 'Balkan' countries for minority matters, including Greece. But even those highly critical organisations (http://www.greekhelsinki.gr) are concluding:"the combined figures for those with a non-Greek national identity indicate that they do not exceed 1% of the 11 million population. Besides the numerous groups of Roma, Arvanites/Arberor, Vlachs/Aromanians, a few Meglenopromanians, and a small number of Jews, no one among them proclaims nowadays a non-Greek national  identity: whereas a few among them have what can be described as a corresponding ethnic identity, along the national one..." . Encarta 2005 also comes to this conclusion. For more analysis read carefully, the leading post of this thread.


 * Even IF, their conclusions are underestimating some figures, fact remains, that Greece is considered as the most homogeneous country in the region. On the other hand, that does not mean that ethnic/linguistic/religious groups do not exist; but your edits simply 'draw' a highly misleading picture about the ethnic/linguistic/religious composition of the country in question. -- Ninio 01:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I think omitting Slavic speakers in Greece is misleading to a considerably greater extent. By the way, I did not question the statement that Greece as a whole is the most homogeneous country in the region. But in fact, Albania can be described as more homogeneous. Boraczek 10:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the logic of Wikipedia is that you do not have to write a perfect article at once, but you can develop it by small improvements. You are free to add more data from Eurominority and GHM. I'd do it myself, but I have to end my computer session now. So excuse me, but I will post the rest of my answer later. Boraczek 22:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will wait for your answers. Please, read every reply carefully (incl. previous sessions) and try to provide the requested information. My regards -- Ninio 01:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I answered and I do not have enough time to edit the article now, even if I would like to include some more data. Boraczek 10:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To Boraczek
There is a page called Demographics of Bulgaria where full information about the ethnic composition of Bulgaria is contained. As for the rest of the claptrap - according to Bulgarian sources there are 1.5 mln Bulgarians in FYROM, 300,000 in Greece, 300,000 in Serbia and around 200,000 in Romania. So, if we are gonna include what Macedonian sources say, then we are include what Bulgarian sources say, as well.

And something more, there is an official Bulgarian census, if you don't like the results of it, either point out your reasons or refrain from commenting. VMORO 21:28, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)~


 * Censuses always underestimate the numbers of members of small minorities. I think this should be clear to anybody who studied the problems of ethnic minorities in Europe and I do not need to explain the reasons here. The underestimation is the reason why it is important to treat censuses as but one (valuable) source to draw conclusions on the size of a minority and to take other sources into consideration to counterbalance a possible distortion. All the more so if the minority is subject to pressure, as it is in the case of Bulgaria.
 * Human rights organization estimates tend to be inflated and minority estimates usually border on science fiction. A census, as long as it is free and non-discriminatory, is the only way to distinguish between groundless and substantiated claims and census results tend to be the only results included in official publications. Birkemaal


 * I am sorry, but I cannot agree with your last statement. In fact, some official documents (even those prepared by government offices) include a wide range of data, not restricted to census data or data provided by GOs. I can provide some examples, if you want me to. Some encyclopaedias and scholar works include estimates by NGOs and minority organizations too. Generally, to treat census results as the ultimate and unquestionable source of information is a serious methodological error. The same error would be, of course, to treat estimates of organizations of minorities as such a source, for the reason you correctly stated. Boraczek 21:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't agree with you, encyclopedia articles do not tend to include such estimates or do so only if there is no official census or it is believed that the census results have been forged, check Britanica for example. Estimates are included in research or documents which deal with a specific problem in depth and these shall also include all kinds of estimates - both pro- and anti-. Birkemaal


 * Another thing we deal with here is the controversy about the purported Macedonian minority in Bulgaria. Macedonian sources and, as you surely know if you really examined the subject, many Western sources consider many inhabitants of the Bulgarian part of Macedonia Macedonians. Bulgarian sources consider them Bulgarians. According to Neutral point of view, our task is to present the conflicting views without asserting them. So the description should take the form: "Macedonians say A, Bulgarians say B, the census indicates X, etc.". It is up to the reader to decide which source is more reliable. Personally, I believe the census results are closer to the truth than the Macedonian claims, but this is my personal opinion I would not like to be reflected in the article.


 * You are interpreting the NPOV rules of Wikipedia rather frivolously. The rules imply that if there is more than one explanation or theory about something, all explanations and/or theories should be represented. Wikipedia, however, does not and will never require that all claims, irrespective whether substantiated or not, be included in the articles, especially in ones with "hard" data like this one. If users start to apply your principles, articles will be clattered up with conflicting claims and in more sensitive areas like the Balkans, there will be incessant edit wars. Birkemaal


 * I think I am interpreting the NPOV rules quite strictly. A view presented by "Nova Makedonija" in my opinion is not "unsubstantiated" to the extent which would justify excluding it from Wikipedia (even if I do not agree with that view). This is an excerpt from the article Neutral point of view:


 * What we mean isn't obvious, and is easily misunderstood. There are many other valid interpretations of "unbiased," and "neutral". The notion of "unbiased writing" that informs Wikipedia's policy is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them." This needs further clarification, as follows.


 * First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present.


 * Boraczek 21:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You have included only the Macedonian side of the argument which does not really hang together with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. So don't expect if other editors regard something you view as NPOV as biased and partial. Birkemaal


 * I think I included both sides of the argument. Let me point out that it is ME who included the Bulgarian census results, which are the strongest and most convincing argument against the Macedonian claims and are often cited by VMORO as the ultimate proof. Boraczek 10:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Deleting the passage about the controversy supports the Bulgarian side of the controversy (as the Macedonian minority is not mentioned) and as such it violates the principle of neutrality. Boraczek 17:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I think I was clear about it in the previous edits - your "neutrality", Boraczek, is fixed on the Macedonians in Bulgaria and Greece. When you start applying your principles on all minorities in all countries (starting with your own), then I can believe that you are doing it for the sake of the principle and not for the sake of revenge. I checked a number of demographics pages of a number of Balkan and East-European countries today, you have tempered only with the Bulgarian and Greek pages (what a surprise). I can't see either the inclusion of any of the Bulgarian claims - which is a direct infringement of the NPOV standards of Wikipedia - such as you understand them, not such as they are. And there are quite many researchers who think that the Macedonian Slavs are ethnic Bulgarians. As for the rest of the harangue directed against me - trying to hide a personal POV opinion behind the standards of Wikipedia is a disgrace. VMORO 20:44, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)~


 * You know what, Boraczek, instead of me and Ninio trying to explain why this page should not contain estimates from unofficial organizations, minority groups and nationalist circles in neighbouring countries, why don't you, explain to me why you haven't applied the numbers given by these organizations, groups and circles to your country first? Since you are so passionate about it? But don't worry, I have fixed that for you. Eurominority, for example, gives some 5.0 mln Ukrainians, 1.5 mln Germans and 1.5 mln Kashubians for Poland, and I have taken a good care to include that fact in the article Demographics of Poland.


 * The data is overinflated, see my comment above. The whole edit is rather questionable, especiálly in the light of the fact that it was made as a result of Boraczek's work in Balkans. Birkemaal


 * Something else - since you consider that the claim of "certain sources" is sufficient to counteract the results of an official census, then my next intension is to search on the net what German, Czech, Slovakian, Silesian, Kashubian, Ukrainian, Belarussian, Russian, Lithuanian, Tatar and African sources think about the number of Germans, Czechs, Slovaks, Silesians, Kashubians, Ukrainians, Belarussians, Russians, Lithuanians, Tatars and Africans in Poland. I don't even slightly doubt that, you, a staunch advocate of minority rights, will nót only support me in that noble endeavour but will also help me with the search. But so much about it now, I don't have more time today but you can send me your gratitude for my contribution either here, or on the talk page of Demographics of Poland which I have added to my watchlist as from today. Warm regards: VMORO 15:11, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)~


 * The discussion about Poland is completely out of place on this talk page. I would like to add that I think the "revenge" style of thinking you seem to present in the comment above is definitely against the spirit of Wikipedia and harmful to its development. Boraczek 17:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The edit is clearly a revenge action and as such is of questionable integrity... However, your motives are far from impeccable, either, Boraczek. The Balkans are seeming with minority claims but you have paid attention only to Macedonian claims, which raises the question of use of double standards. The question of Albanian claims to the number of the Albanians in Kosovo and Macedonia is much more pertinent and much better substantiated than the one of Macedonian ones in Bulgaria and even, to some extent, in Greece, as a great number of publications have adressed the assertion that Albanians in Macedonia represent 40% of the overall population and clearly some part of the Albanian population there does not have any identity papers and has not been counted in last two censuses. Unlike what you say, no Western sources have mentioned the numbers of Macedonians you are quoting in recent years and human rights organization, when talking about human rights violations in Bulgaria, have mentioned 1,000-2,000 Macedonians in Pirin Macedonia. You are clearly defending Slav Macedonian positions, there is nothing bad about that, but it doesn't have anything to do with the neutrality of Wikipedia, either. Birkemaal


 * It is true that I only added data related to Greece and Bulgaria (but not only to Macedonian claims) and in this sense my edits were partial. But expecting me to add all relevant data about all European minorities at once is a bit too much, I think. All the more so when much of my time was consumed by the discussion with VMORO and Ninio about their repetitious deletions. I maintain that many Western sources consider many inhabitants of Pirin Macedonia Macedonians (but this is not relevant to the article anymore). You seem to think that I am in favor of the Macedonian claims, which, paradoxically, makes me think that I was able to transcend my POV, because my personal opinion on the number of Macedonians in Bulgaria and Greece is unfavorable for rhe Macedonian claims. Cocluding, I cannot agree with most of your critical comments. Nonetheless, I really appreciate them. Kind regards. Boraczek 21:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Self-correction - I forgot that I had also added data related to Croatia :-) Boraczek 10:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, Western sources clearly consider the majority of the population of Pirin Macedonia Bulgarian, this is valid both for encyclopedias where it is unconditional, for documents by state institutions, as well as for recent research - by for example, Roudometof and Poulton, who have clearly presented the most impressive Western research on the Macedonian question in the 1990s. The reaction of the two may not be especially "gracious" but they are likely to have considered your edits inflammatory. A Macedonian editor will react in the same way if you place the Bulgarian claim that the Macedonians are ethnic Bulgarians on the Macedonian page although this is at least partially true in a historical perspective... May be you should consider moving your edit to Macedonian Slavs or "Macedonians" as VMORO has suggested in order to prevent further escalation of the conflict, as you two are progressively losing your heads. Regards. Birkemaal


 * The Bulgarian claims are also worth mentioning and in fact they ARE mentioned in the article about Macedonian Slavs. I can understand that mentioning Macedonian claims may enrage a Bulgarian editor and mentioning Bulgarian claims may enrage a Macedonian editor, but I think our task is not to please biased Macedonian and Bulgarian editors (and it is impossible to please them both), but to report on the controversy preserving acuraccy and neutrality. I wonder why you think that I am "losing my head". On the contrary, I am rather calm, as I am not emotionally engaged in the disputted matter (unlike VMORO, who seems to be driven by strong nationalist emotions). Kind regards. Boraczek 10:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Address that comment to yourself, may be it is gonna help. No demographics pages here (as well as in all other major online Encyclopaedias such as Britannica and Encarta) make use of Intereg or unofficial reports, to say nothing of what a country claims that its minority in another country is. (And that is not even the official position of FYROM as the Macedonian government has accepted the results of the Bulgarian census, it is Macedonian nationalist circles that make such claims)

You are the first user who tries this "innovative approach", actually vandalism. Can you tell me you you have vandalised only the pages of Bulgaria and Greece and of no other country? It is dangerous when one starts to confuse his own POV and biased opinions with Wikipedia ethical standards. VMORO 21:16, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)~


 * There is no reason to exclude INTEREG data, or at least you did not show there was such a reason. I moved information which was previously only included in the article about the Balkans to the corresponding articles about particular countries, so as not to loose information (the reason why I only edited articles about Bulgaria and Greece is that only in these articles the data were not included, all other articles had more detailed information on ethnic minorities). Calling it vandalism is in my opinion an obvious abuse of the term and a personal attack. I am offended by this term and I think that you should apologize for using it. Boraczek 21:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and I am offended by your inflammatory, offensive and POV edits which are not only made in conflict with the NPOV policy of Wikipedia but are disguised as a defence exactly of that policy. The only reason you launched your personal attack against Greece and Bulgaria was because Ninio and I did not accept your argumentation about the existence of a minority of 200,000-300,000 Macedonian Slavs in Greece, which is something you yourself admitted was wrong eventually and agreed to a number of 10,000-30,000.

Now let's get down to business, i.e. why I removed and I'll keep removing your POV edit in Bulgaria:

Your edit is POV as it regards only one part of a dispute which has been going on for about 60 years and in which Bulgaria says that all Slavs in Macedonia are Bulgarians, and Macedonia says that all Slavs in Macedonia are Macedonians. If you reiterate that in any of the articles here and afterwards you give the census results for Bulgaria and Macedonia, then you can say that you are treating the matter in an NPOV spirit.

However, you are reviewing the claim only from the Macedonian side which is essentially a partiality and a POV treatment. Particularly offensive for me as a Macedonian Bulgarian is the statement that "the matter is the subject of heat contension". All major sources in recent years have quoted only the results of the Bulgarian census and it is only human rights organizations which have questioned it and have made estimates of 10,000-25,000 Macedonian Slavs in Bulgaria (as Birkemaal points out - an inflated estimate), admittig simultaneously that the vast majority of the population of Pirin Macedonia is Bulgarian. The "heat contension" (do you want to say a "heated contension" or what???) exists only in your head.

Third of all - the inclusion of this questionable edit in the article Bulgaria or Demographics of Bulgaria. There are so many minority claims in Europe and especially in the Balkans but none of the demographics pages or the head pages of any country reviews them. You have the questionable pre-eminance of being the first editor who engages in speculations of this sort. Until there is a general understanding that the pages I mentioned will include POV information of the sort you want to include in our page (i.e. the page Demographics of FYROM will, for example, include information on the Albanian, Bulgarian, Serbian and Turkish claims, the page of Serbia will include information on the Albanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, etc. claims, the page of Bulgaria will include information on Macedonian, Turkish and Romanian ´claims, etc.), I have the full right to view your edits as POV and as a personal attack against me as an editor and against my country. Your POV edit has no place on the page Bulgaria, it may be placed on the page Macedonia (but only accompanied by the Bulgarian POV claim), or on the page Macedonian Slavs along with the Macedonian POV claims against Greece and Albania and only followed by the official data of the Macedonian population in the three mentioned countries. VMORO 14:03, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)~

Breakdown for particular states
As descriptions of the ethnic compositions in particular states seem to be a source of a neverending battle, are of disputable relevance to this article and lead to repetitions of the same data in different articles, I will remove this part of article and move the descriptions to the articles about the particular states. Boraczek 17:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I am restoring information which is necessary and useful and has been wrongly erased by Boraczek. At least in my opinion there should be an overview over larger, esp. territorial minorities, which are PROVED to exist, not which is speculated about. I tried to read through the argument above and I find some things which are disturbing, if not bizarre. What was that claim that a newspaper is as important a source of information as a census? If the Sun comes out with a headline that "Prince William is a pansy and likes to take it up.....", I would believe that we all have to rush to write half a page about that, right? Sure, both a newspaper and a census are a source of evidence, but on the scale of 1 to 10, the importance of a census is 10 and the importance of a newspaper is -5. JayO 10:55, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are quite right about the newspaper, but I think this does not need to be discussed at the moment, so I drop the topic. In my opinion ethnic compositions for particular countries should be placed in articles about particular countries. This article concerns the Balkans as a whole and ethnic composition should be described with regard to the Balkans as a whole. If we follow the country by country method, the information will be uselessly doubled and an edit war in this article will probably go on, as we did not agreed on any version yet. If you want to include that part in the article, we need to reach a consensus on that part first. I am putting that part below in case such an attempt is made.

If some more detailed information is to be put, then in my opinion we should determine two things:

1. What is that information for?

Is this to present all Balkan countries one by one in the ethnic aspect? Personally, I think it merely doubles the ethnic part of "Demographics of" articles and as such is superfluous. Is this to show how ethnically differentiated the Balkans are? If so, we should even mention small minorities.

Is this to give more detailed information about the ethnic groups and minorities in the Balkans. If so, then I think a better layout would be to present ethnic group by ethnic group (including the places they live in), rather than country by country. This seems to be more closely related to the subject of the article and has the additional virtue of not repeating information from the "Demographics of" articles. There is only some risk that we will repeat information from articles about ethnic groups, but as ethnic groups are usually not restricted to the Balkans (emigration, etc.), this would not be exactly the same information.

2. What is the size of minority which makes the minority worth mentioning in the article? What is the threshold? 1% of the total population? 0.5%? 0.1%? 500,000? 100,000? 50,000?

Boraczek 15:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) Boraczek 10:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Albania has a Greek minority which is largely Greek Orthodox in religion. The Greek population is mainly concentrated in its southern part, sometimes referred to as Northern Epirus.

Bosnia and Herzegovina has three constitutive nations: Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats.

Bulgaria has a Turkish minority (largely Muslim), in the northeastern part of the country and in the Kurdzhali region.

Croatia has a Serb minority, the majority of which is displaced and now lives in Serbia or Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Greece has a Muslim minority mainly concentrated in Thrace. It is also the recipient of economic migrants, mostly from Albania; the majority migrated illegally during the 1990s and political efforts to evaluate their status are pushed forward.

(Former Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia has a large ethnic Albanian minority in the western and northwestern part of the country, as well as smaller Turkish and Serbian minorities.

Serbia and Montenegro has a Hungarian, Croat and Slovak minority in the province of Vojvodina, a Bulgarian one in eastern Serbia (the Western Outlands), a Vlach one in the Timocka Krajina, a Bosniak one in Sandzak and an Albanian one in the Presevo valley and eastern Montenegro. Kosovo, which is formally part of Serbia and Montenegro, but is currently under an international protectorate has an Albanian majority and a Serbian minority.

Istanbul in the European part of Turkey has a remaining Greek minority, largely Greek Orthodox in religion.

Why is romania in pale green? As far as I know Romania is part of the Balkans; even though Transilvania is in central europe, the other two Romanian regions of Moldova and Vallachia are and have always been in the Blakans. On top of that many would argue that becuse of its proximity, even Hungary is sometimes considered to be part of the Balkans (as a consequence clearly making Transilvania a balkan region as well)

Moreover guys, I think we should distinguish between South-Eastern Europe and Balkans because I think they mean 2 very similar yet still different things. Usually Turkey and Greece are always considered in the Balkans, however when people say South-East Europe they only mean Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia and Montenegro, FYROM(acedonia)m Albania, Romania, Bulgaria and the Republic of Moldova. Greece and Turkey are rather omitted here.

Anyways these are minor additions but I think they deserve some thought.

Mihaitza

It is incorrect to say that Greece is omitted in the definition of South East Europe. I am look at a dozen various think tanks, several with the name South East Europe, eg the South East Eurpoe project of the Wilson Center, and they include Greece quite specifically. So does the http://www.setimes.com/ SoutEast European Times, which is a pentagon based news aggregator.DaveHM 12:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive
The article History of the Balkans has been listed to be improved on This week's improvement drive. You can add your vote there if you would like to support the article.--Fenice 06:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Fenice 06:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

A BRIEF COMMENT ON HISTORICAL STATISTICAL DATA IN THE BALKANS
The issue of minorities in the Balkan or S.E.European region [which Greece considers to be synonymous] is absolutely caught up with political construction. This is basically because of the legacy of the Ottoman Empire, which de-emphasised ethnicity and created complex multiple identities, followed by a 19th-early 20th Century obsession with creating nation-states [see Mazower (2001), The Balkans, Phoenix Press, for an easy introduction to this history].

Thus, different ways of defining ethnicity, even using censuses or official counts, led [and still lead] to very different results. A theoretical analysis of this as a global phenomenon is given in Census and Identity: The Politics of Race, Ethnicity and Language in National Censuses, Kertzer & Arel (eds), 2001, Cambridge UP. IN the Balkan region there is a lot of literature on this, but 2 examples available on the net concern the area known as Macedonia. One paper, by a Greek, shows different results from Greeks and Bulgarians using the same historical dataset The War of Statistics

Another, concerns the latest Macedonian [fyRoM,if you are Greek] Census results, and the massive controversy over how many Albanians were and should have been recorded Macedonian Census results - controversy or reality?

Basically, there are no certainties about ethnic identity in the Balkans. It is interesting to note, as well, that the only EU Balkan country -- Greece -- is also the only EU or Balkan country which since 1951 has failed to ask Census question concerning self-identified ethnicity, religion, native languages spoken or country of birth. This is because Greece does not accept any concept of minority status other than Muslims in Thraki, as laid down by the Treaty of Lausanne. There are even no proper data on the number of Greek Muslims in Thraki, despite three different minorities being classed as one official Minority. The clear result is that nobody knows anything for sure, and Greece can claim almost complete ethnic homogeneity: the history of the 20th century suggests a very different picture, however. --87.202.20.208 04:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC) Martin Baldwin-Edwards, Mediterranean Migration Observatory, Athens

I agree with a some of your statements, but I think that the claim that Greece is the only country not to conduct a census since 1951 is misleading. You are comparing states that for fifty years had some of the most repressive Stalinist regimes to a state that had problems but the full influence and particpation of the west, and forgive te term free world. How many French or British journalists were in Albania until a dozen years ago? What was the expectation of privacy, reprisal etc of persons reporting identity in Bulgaria at that time? We do know there was pervasive official persecution of the Turkish minority by Sofia.

What do you think it was like for persons considering declaring declaring a Turkish or Greeke identity in Bulgaria in 1977? A Greek identity in Albania? Please do so research on the Roma census data from the censuses in the South East European coutnries in the 50's, 60s, 70s, 80s etc. See a problem?

Your tag line,  the history of the 20th century suggests a very different picture, however. is to say the least, profoundly misleading. The nation state of Greece, as we know it today, is a entirely a 20th century creation, and most ironicaly considering your assertion, is in fact one created by the prevailing European and American views of ethnicity.

Moreover, the self same current standards of minority and ethnicty being discussed by some mean that the United States is 99% minorities...almost all of which are "prevented" from having "official recognition."DaveHM 12:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

A response: I am astonished that you find a detached, factual and independent view to be "misleading" on two counts: presumably you have a particular agenda to fulfil. To answwer your specific points: (1) The Balkan states were not Stalinist, in particular Yugoslavia was completely different. (2) Albania was unique, and completely closed to the outside world, It had also severed relations with the USSR and Yugoslavia. (3) As far as I am aware [and I will check with Bulgarian colleagues] the problems with the Turkish minority in Bulgaria occurred only AFTER the collapse of the communist regime, in 1989. HOwever, I will concede one point: recently, Bulgaria has decided [like Greece] to exclude minority identification in future censuses. (4) Greek identities in Albania were asserted, recorded in censuses and permitted throughout the communist period. Check the facts. (5) Roma have been the victims of massive discrimination in every Balkan country, and denied even an existence: Greece is no exception to that. So, what is your point? (6) The nation state of Greece is a 19th century creation, with the northern part of the territory achieved through the Balkan Wars and non-Greeks there either removed or forcibly assimilated. I cannot accept that Greek identity is shaped by European or American standards: it is premised on lineage, a supposed continuity with Ancient Greece, and there is no acceptance of new members to the society. In other words, it is the opposite of the American idea and has more in common with the German Volk. (7) In reality, it is your comments which are profoundly misleading. By introducing complexities which are not very pertinent, sowing seeds of doubt about broad statements [everything can have small detailed exceptions] you try to pretend that Greece is a typical European country, similar also to the USA. I have never heard anything so laughable! Martin Baldwin-Edwards--87.202.20.120 04:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

removal of my addition of official data
User Smolenski has deleted my edits and outside references to the 2001 Census and my own official report to the Greek state. If Wikipedia users are not capable of seeing what the actual links and sources are, then the whole of Wikipedia is a joke. I do not intend to restore my changes, I will leave it to others to do so. There are only 10,1 million Greeks in Greece, and that is the official position. If people want to invent statistical disputes when in fact there are none, there is no hope at all. Martin Baldwin-Edwards --87.202.16.11 08:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Number of Greeks
According to the 2001 Greek census there are 10.171.906 Greek citizens, so how can it be that there are 11.000.000 Greeks in Greece? The data, reinserted by Ninio, are obviously wrong, so I'm taking the liberty to revert. Boraczek 21:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Defining the extent and limits of an exotic region
Hm.. the more I click my way around on these pages, the more I come to realize that perspectives and understandnings on all these exotic regions and continents vary and are highly subjective and even biased. Perhaps the English usage is much more inconsistent, unprecise and overlapping than the native-speakers' usage. If so, this is similar to other vaguely-defined regions that are found in the minds of distant groups of people and mean different things to them. See also Talk:Siberia, Talk:Latin America, Talk:Middle East and Talk:Scandinavia, and also exonym versus autonym for similar discussions of namings and meanings. //Big Adamsky 18:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Croatia is clearly in the Balkans, but Romania isn't????
This article is utter non-sense. Would somebody care to explain why Romania which was part of the Ottoman Empire for centuries is not considered to be Balkan, although Croatia is. Please, spare me the explanation that parts of Croatia were too, since the whole of Hungary, and parts of eastern Austria were too. Compared with Romania what on earth makes Croatia more Balkan or less Central-European?


 * EXPLANATION TO YOU:
 * It is clear from the map that Croatia is on the Balkans and Romania is sometimes considered as a balkan state, and sometimes not. As far as Croatia is concernd, it's a typical balkan state (except for a small region north of Zagreb, which is more civilized ), and there's no big difference between Dalmatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Slavonia, Bosnia, etc..It's mentality, people, language..etc.=it's all the same=all BALKAN! That's the truth! It hurts you and those who think like you, but all offences will be returned to the offenders!
 * Greetings from someone who understands very well the situation on the Balkans;


 * Hello ip 24.80.118.62 and thank you for your "clarification". I couldn't help noticing your "civilised" comments on "Serbo-Croatian page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASerbo-Croatian_language&diff=34269151&oldid=33391709). In the future I would like to hear from someone who is not tainted with Greater Serbia propaganda. Best wishes from Croatia


 * Well, only a small chunk of Romania lies to the south of the Kupa-Sava-Danube line and therefore geographically in the Balkans. A significantly bigger portion of Croatia is in the Balkans. Plus, in a geopolitical sense Croatia is generally considered to be part of the Balkans, while Romania isn't included in this as much. But this is all explained in the article, you only have to read. edolen1 19:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words Edolen1. Mind you I have read the article and couldn't help noticing that roughly 75 per cent of it deals with historical, cultural, political and other "non-geographical" aspects of what it "takes to belong to the region". Britannica clearly states that Romania (and, for that matter Moldova too) is in the Balkans. Apparently that would contradict your statement regarding the "Kupa-Sava-Danube line" as the northern border of the region. Furthermore, if we take into account non-geographical aspects of the issue, Romania is hardly more central-european or less Balkan than Croatia. That, I am sure you'll agree, applies to Slovenia too.

Balkan vs. Balkan Peninsula on Interlang Links
I think we should coordinate with the other wikis to make sure that we link to Balkan or Balkans or the equivalent - a lot of the interlanguage links link to Balkan peninsula. Constistency would be good here - Adam Mathias 08:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Improvement Drive
Roma people has been nominated to be improved on the Improvement Drive. Support this article with your vote and help us improve it to featured status!--Fenice 10:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Balkan folklore
If you want to see and hear the sounds of a real BALKAN folklore, watch the Croatian song "Moja stikla" on Eurovision Song Contest this year(2006). The singer Severina is the most popular croatian singer, born in in Dalmatia, and she sings a modern song with many folklore elements from Dalmatia. Hope you'll all like it! Go for the victory Severina!

Cyprus not Balkan
The map in the main page seems to include Cyprus as part of the Balkan region []. This is not the case; the map needs to be corrected.
 * The colour indicates Southern Europe, not the Balkans, otherwise Spain would be in the Balkans as well, according to that map. edolen1 14:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Western Balkans
Could please somebody define this term or create a new article? It is not mentioned here. (see de:Westbalkan) --Neoneo13 09:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article
Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring, a poll is currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Geographical borders??
Can someone please tell me the exact geographical borders of the Balkan Peninsula. I'm not interested in the political borders. I want to know Balkans' northeren border and wether or not the Balkans contain Romanian territory georgaphically.
 * There are no "geographical" borders since it is not a geographical peninsula, even if many people refer to it in that way. edolen1 14:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The term Balkan began as the appelation of a mountain range in Bulgaria, that is its only geographical reference. They are still called that. In the late 19 century, the term began encompassing the regions in southeast Europe breaking away from the Ottoman empire. It became associated with the countries that emerged from what was 'Turkey in Europe' in the later half of the 19 century. Politis 18:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Quality of Knowledge in Wikipedia
Dear Aldux:

Invoking historical atlantes as source of historical knowledge is probably usual and somehow legitimate at a high-school or college level, but by no means on the level of higher education, which is supposed to be that of wikipedia.

There are lots of bad books. Not every printed material may be a source for wikipedia. With a few notable exceptions, historical atlantes are synthesis works aimed at transmitting basics of geo-politics to a large audience.

As for the topic itself, please keep in mind that no Romanian State did ever belong to the Ottoman Empire. Romanian principalities were vassal tributary states, but never were they Ottoman territory, like the territories southern Danube.

From every conceivable angle of view (international law, social, political, economical, cultural, religious, etc) there is a huge difference between a territory being an integral part of a state and a territory being vassal/tributary to that state.

Besides: bullheaded persistance is somehow typical for ignorants and stupids.

Civilised people use to comunicate.

--84.154.29.31 14:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)